Adobe Credentials AI checking

DD_Crash said:
Cameras (which are in effect computers with a sensor) can do a lot in camera black & white, HDR, even "film effect" and colours can change due to lighting. What actually is the correct colour?
Click to expand...
SonicSW20 said:
Am I not allowed to question where you drew the line? There's all sorts of "editing" I can do in camera which would apply to the JPG but not the raw. If a competition asks for a raw file to "prove" the JPG is legitimate, they would look very different because a basic profile applied to the raw will be far removed from the in camera edited JPG. These edits are all global and functionally similar to using the basic sliders and colour tools in Lightroom. With the line there the JPG out of camera would be fine despite being very different to the raw with the "standard" profile applied, but a JPG exported from Lightroom using the camera matching colour profile and lens corrections would not be allowed even though visually it would look less "edited".

I am using analogue photography as an analogy. A raw file is somewhat comparable to exposed film - it is not a final image on its own and what the final image looks like will depend on the processing. Using the same logic there is no true "out of camera" photo with film unless its instant so I am curious where a similar line is drawn there.
Click to expand...
Photography is about capturing a moment in light.

The question was posed "What is your definition of editing".....

My answer is that my definition of editing is doing anything in post to the JPEG your camera created. I am not ignorant to the processing that goes on to generate that image, I'm simply answering the question that was posed.

What is your definition of editing?
 
You are right about doing anything in post, however de-mossaicing in raw editors will give slightly different results. For example some say Capture1 is best others say DxO photolab, or Lightroom etc and when you see it on the screen it probable will look slightly different to how you remember when you took the image. Even the monitor calibration can change the appearance and in camera doesnt always give the best exposure or white balance.
 
mid_gen said:
Photography is about capturing a moment in light.

The question was posed "What is your definition of editing".....

My answer is that my definition of editing is doing anything in post to the JPEG your camera created. I am not ignorant to the processing that goes on to generate that image, I'm simply answering the question that was posed.

What is your definition of editing?
Click to expand...

I would argue that every in camera JPG is edited the moment it is created, and there is no such thing as an unedited photo. We can argue all day about where in the process those edits should be done of course, but it is edited all the same.

I am perhaps being a little bit facetious by pulling the conversation away from localised edits that add, remove, or modify objects within a photo (with or without AI), but I think its an important distinction.

By not allowing post processing you'd be banning long established photographic techniques like ETTR for example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposing_to_the_right - this cannot be done without correcting the exposure in post.
 
mid_gen said:
JPEGs out of the camera. No editing on a computer.
Click to expand...
My camera can auto edit the jpeg with the use of ai algorithms or whatever.
I'm guessing a lot of others do the same, so your competition entry becomes as good as your cameras AI? or who has the most expensive lens and camera

Here's the auto colour grading options it would choose based on the scene it detects, also does all the usual auto mode crap, pretty much AI does everything and I just press a button.
9H1ek2O.png



Competitions seem like a waste of time imo, unless you have a really good camera with amazing tracking, auto focus etc your already at a massive disadvantage anyway?

also someone with a better lens is going to take better pictures, that's just a fact.

what's the point unless everyone is using the same camera and lens.


a6700 isn't perfect but I would likely have a massive advantage over someone with a camera and lens that cost 1000 or less
 
Last edited:
They can be but some love entering competitions. Editing trends and subjects seem to go in and out of fashion. One current style I have noticed are portraits with texture overlay and previously a lot of winners looked over processed to me. Yes the hardware can make a difference to the image but removing distractions, cropping and maybe even using a LUT and vignette to emphasize the subject can really improve an image. The point is that the possibility of images being inadmissible because Adobe cant be used to check for AI use on images edited with other software. Adobe doesnt give better quality pixels.
 
arknor said:
My camera can auto edit the jpeg with the use of ai algorithms or whatever.
I'm guessing a lot of others do the same, so your competition entry becomes as good as your cameras AI? or who has the most expensive lens and camera

Here's the auto colour grading options it would choose based on the scene it detects, also does all the usual auto mode crap, pretty much AI does everything and I just press a button.
9H1ek2O.png



Competitions seem like a waste of time imo, unless you have a really good camera with amazing tracking, auto focus etc your already at a massive disadvantage anyway?

also someone with a better lens is going to take better pictures, that's just a fact.

what's the point unless everyone is using the same camera and lens.


a6700 isn't perfect but I would likely have a massive advantage over someone with a camera and lens that cost 1000 or less
Click to expand...
This is clearly nonsense, people take great photographs with manual focus and 100 ASA film. If you can’t take a great photo with an A6700 then you just suck at photography.

My experience of camera clubs is that they are just that, camera clubs, full of people who would rather talk about cameras than actually take photographs. The old boy from the local club has approached me a few times and launched into some waffle about Sony vs Nikon, I can’t imagine anything more dull.
 
I'm not opposed to editing as such. In fact you need it for complex scenes involving more than one exposure. I'd draw the line with prompt engineering though.
 
A bit more info from the O1 forum, it looks like Adobe Credentials doesnt look at the metadata.

Our Comp Secretary has now got a copy of Adobe Credentials, and has been scanning images. He has expressed concern at the number of false positives. i.e., images that were created from scratch, without using AI, and were then flagged up by Adobe as definitely being created by AI. When to be frank, they could not have been.

He has scanned some of my Photo Raw created images, (last year’s Comp Entries), and so far they have not fallen foul of Adobe’s Credentials software.

Personally, I am not worried about using ON1’s AI Masking. Because it just selects what is there in the original raw file. It is not a form of generative AI.

Sorry, but this looks like something that is going to run and run. And the false Positives will no doubt be used to great effect during some of the inter club comps. (Easy way to dismiss images that are considered to be too good?)
 
Last edited:
Just watched an On1 resize video and it uses AI to "put in detail" which can look really good. I am sure that Topaz and the new Photoshop tools will do the same, so that means now upscaling would be considered inadmissible if no AI is allowed.
 
Any decent competition should or aught to define what admissible in advance otherwise it's going to be a mess. I think the yearly London camera exchange does.
 
I am sure the club competitions will use PAGB guidelines but I am not too sure what they actually are, hence the enquiries about Adobe Credentials. When the club starts meeting again I hope to find out more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom